The problem is that the Federal Government did not do anything to get arbitration removed by Credit Card issuing banks.
What happened was that the banks used an organization called NAF which was literally funded by the banks. Of course NAF found for the banks 99% of the time. Then the MN Attorney General looking to make a name for herself took NAF to task and NAF folded. That left 2 arbitration forums that were more expensive for the banks and more consumer friendly than NAF.
Some consumers actually read their contract and when they were brought to court for not paying their debts, used the contract against the banks to force the banks into paying 5-figure arbitration fees for 4-figure debts. The court judges in some states started to go along with the consumers. Hence, the banks removed arbitration from their contracts because they could not outright use it to screw over the customer anymore. Of course, the banks have a 98% success rate in court but that is because people do not answer the cases when summoned and even if they do answer, most answer "I cannot afford to pay".
Do a search on credit debt collection boards and you will find what I mean about the above.
So, since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did. Are they trying to turn this into something like the Providian case where they OCC entered at the last minute then turned around and said that state AGs cannot take banks to court for violations using that case as a success (again, look up Providian Credit Card Case)? I wonder if they are trying to protect the cell phone companies rather than the consumers.
Personally I am rooting on Hurd because that will help many of the little people too with these same clauses. I think that if they do not want him working for a set period of time, then then need to pay him for that time based on current salary (same as any other worker whom they do not want to work for the competition). That would make things fair for both sides.
This is my question to NYCL. Can a judge modify the order to require the plaintiff to pay for the defendants costs? If not, then the defendant is out the legal costs and this is really no victory what so ever because the RIAA can still use this case as leverage for their extortion scheme (pay us $5000 now or you will pay $20,000 whether you win or lose).
If I were a defendant in this situation, I would fight the motion for dismissal on those grounds.
I notice that it is always the large companies that try to do stuff like this, not the smaller companies and businesses. If this concerns you, reevaluate who you work for. May be tough in these economic times but there are still job opportunities for if you look hard enough (and really, smaller businesses to not hire from Monster.com/Dice/Local Newspaper).
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice. If they can, that will allow them to get out of paying the other party's legal fees but allow them to refile the case in the future. If they cannot, they can be held responsible for the legal fees and cannot refile.
So what I want to know it, what is the point where the judges say "Put up or shut up"? I know in the Oklahoma case (don't have the particulars on hand), the RIAA was forced to accept a dismissal with prejudice because significant discovery had already been done. I wonder in this case, had discovery even commenced or did the RIAA try to get a default judgment based on what they had and once they could not get that, dismiss to avoid discovery and the related issues.
I had also read somewhere in one of the RIAA cases that the judge's decision was based on the fact that the defendant has the right to their day in court too if there is a legal issue to prove their innocence. Will that factor here too?
That is exactly what is going on, although I have to add that most of the politicians are from Downstate NY and most people there thing Upstate means Albany (forget about Syracuse, Watertown, Binghamton, Rochester, and Buffalo).
This biggest way this issue shows up is the issue involving taxing tobacco and gas on Native reservations. Looks like Paterson is going to try again not realizing the mistakes of Cuomo and Pataki. The last time they tried to tax sales on reservations, it lead to quite a bit of blood shed on both sides and embarrassment for the governor. Part of that issue too is that all major transportation arteries in Upstate NY run through an Native reservation of some sort or another.
Glad I left NY years ago. Have no plans to move back.
If it is not about the money than what is it about? All this effort to refute science will not bring about better therapies or even a cure. I do not think more research is being done if scientists are busy trying to defend their work in court or discovery.
Simply put, if scientific treatments were available to children with autism that have been proven to work without cost to the families, if care was available so the rest of the family can do normal things, if care was available for the adults who cannot be self-supporting, would this even be an issue. I think not. But because so much stress is put on the family in both finances and personal issues, people are grasping at any straw they can get at before they go under, even if the straw turns out to be a 500 lb weight.
Yes, right now there are huge issues with snake oil dealers offering their wares to desperate parents. Some of which are downright dangerous. Yes, there are too few trained therapists and the ones that are out there are out of reach in cost except to those in the upper classes. This makes the situation a lot worse than it really ought to be.
I am sorry to say, but in the end, the issue is money. Who is going to pay for this when no one wants to? But should be throw aside science just because it is inconvenient. If that is the case, then all of the planets, moons, and sun should still revolve around the earth which is flat. We really need to take the science at face value and move on because I do not think it does your children, as well as anyone else with an ASD any good to continue to dwell on this subject.
The reason why this debate has been and is still going on, even with the evidence to the contrary, is the money trail.
The average cost of therapies for Autism is about $50,000 - $100,000 US per year for at least 2 - 3 years for those who end up being higher functioning and even more for those that are lower functioning. Health Insurance companies refuse to pay the costs calling it a mental health issue (will be interesting to see where mental health parity leads), the schools do not want to pay for it because they do not see it as a medical issue, and for those who never get the ability to survive on their own, the government is not real interested in paying for their care for the rest of their lives. I am sure that in some ways, athasma is in a similar area.
To make the situation worse, there is stress on the whole family. The parents cannot go out together because they cannot find someone to care for their kid. The other kids feel left out. There is the monetary stress. Simply put they want someone to pay.
Who better than a big bad corporation who has deep pockets. So of course, now they are going to be blamed. The lawyers pick it up for the money and the media picks it up because situations like that sell news. Even worse, if there is evidence that proves that this group is wrong, it is either ignored or there is a conspiracy. I remember a couple of months ago where we here on Slashdot where a mother and person with Autism did a blog against the whole MMR causes vaccines argument and was vigorously subpeonaed by a lawyer fighting for anti-vaccine parents. This occurred in the Dow-Corning fight with Silicone Breast implants too.
Add to the fact that in most cases, scientists cannot and will not say for 100% certainty that MMR does not cause Autism. This is because nothing is 100%. If 100 people jump out of a 3rd story window and all die, are you 100% certain that the 101st also will die when the jump out. In fact, the agent which is claimed to cause the issues has been removed from vaccines in many states in the USA and the expected drop in autism has not occurred. That should be enough proof for most people that they are looking up the wrong path.
I do not think this will die however until someone/thing comes up with a system to pay for the treatments of autism and other issues. This is all about the money.
Even the questions do not change, only the question numbers. I remember taking Calculus III where one student refused to purchase the new edition and we let him map the question numbers between editions so that he did not have to.
The idea here is to completely remove the used textbook market which costs the publishers quite a bit of money. I would almost bet that Hamlet and the other required reading in English Lit has not changed much in a couple of hundred years but every other year, there is a new edition.
What it comes down to is terms of employment. If you have a contract, than the issue of patents is probably spelled out in such a contract. If you are an at-will employee, that means that your company can fire you if the powers that be do not like the color of you pants let alone refusing to take part in a process that could or could not enrich them.
What will happen if you refuse is that not only will you be fired, but if you signed a non-compete agreement, you can be sure that the company will pursue that avenue as much as it legally can to make sure you do not work to break you. They will also pursue all other legal avenues just to make your life difficult. As for the patent, I am sure you worked in a group and as such, will simply get someone else to put their name on it using you as an example on what happens if they refuse.
The truth of the matter though is, if you did the work on company time and it was a company project, then it is their idea and work, not yours. You therefore have to follow the company directives on that work.
What I would suggest is doing the objections thing first. If that does not work, they vigorously try to find any prior art that would cause issues with the patent office. I am sure you could find something through IBM's portfolio if you look hard enough.
The other step would be to consider a job change. The big companies may seem to be leaving the USA but many small/mid-sized companies that are private are screaming for programmers. They are more likely to understand a person who lives by principles. In other words, start looking for another job or method to earn income. If you leave this employer on good terms, then at least you may have a chance of negotiating your terms of discharge with them.
Actually, it is dependent on state law as to what what patents are owned by the company and which ones are not. I know here in Minnesota, the only patents that the company is allowed to request from an individual are any that were the result of company work. If you create something on your own time, it is your own patent and a company contract cannot take that right away
The rules of trespass are dependent on the state you reside in. The issue here is how the rules apply to rural property which is different in some ways than urban property due to the cost of putting up a fence on a property that could be at least 40 acres.
Most states require a sign that states either "PRIVATE PROPERTY" or "NO TRESPASSING" that is of a certain height and width and includes the name and address of a contact person. In some states, this sign is to only be posted at the entrance of the property (such as New Hampshire) and in other states, it is to be posted at intervals around the property (such as NY that requires a sign every 40 ft).
Once the property is posted, it becomes the responsibility of the party without permission to enter the property to keep off. Once there is evidence that they were on the property and the property owner can prove it, you can be charged with trespass.
Also, you cannot claim that you cannot read or do not understand English. The signs are usually a special color (usually yellow with black lettering). This has been an issue with the Hmong community in this part of the country.
This will get more interesting however because as Google tries to photograph more rural regions of the country where the map may mark a road but the road itself is private property. Hell, even some suburban areas have streets that are private property (here, condo developments and apartment complexes have private streets which are signed a different color than public streets).
True, there is no expectation of privacy from a public street but once you hit a "No Trespassing" sign, there is an expectation of privacy beyond that sign.
BTW, the air rights for a property is generally 200ft. You can put an antenna on your property up to 200ft without notification to the FAA. It is obviously lower near airports.
There will be no court case on Monday. The Bankruptcy filing effectively stays the lawsuit until SCO is reorganized or the Bankruptcy judge removes the stay.
I am thinking the later will happen. I am sure the Novell will file that SCO is really a fiduciary for their assets under the contract and as such, they get first dibs on SCO's assets. In order to find out how much Novell gets though, the case will have to be heard and ruled on. Therefore, the Bankruptcy court judge will lift the stay on the trial.
Even if Mrs. Foster does die, the heirs to her estate can continue the suit (and it would be to their advantage since the lawyers can attach the estate). Therefore, someone dying does not end a lawsuit.
In fact, the same works for bankruptcy (as we will see in the SCO case). When an entity declares bankruptcy, the trustee takes over all of the affairs that have a financial impact to the estate, including legal cases. The trustee can then decide whether it is in the best interest in the creditors to continue the fight or give up.
Capitol Records will eventually end up paying. The only issue is when and how much by the time it is all settled.
In most places, that is similar to the cost of a average speeding ticket by the time court fees and the like are taken into account. That low of an amount certainly does not stop speeding.
Also, by the time you consider that the settlement offers are requesting thousands of dollars, one could simply ignore them, wait for the lawsuit, contact a lawyer to make the settlement offer, and be done with it for less money. Why would I answer a settlement letter after this (assuming I get one first considering the way things are going regarding ex parte subpoenas for the RIAA).
I will agree with you that file sharing is illegal and that file sharing amounts to theft and that it occurs on college networks.
HOWEVER
You do not fight crime by committing a crime yourself. You do not shoot a jaywalker that walked in front of your car forcing you to slow down (hell, you should not even run them over). However, the RIAA feels that since the defendants in their opinion were committing a crime, they do not have to follow the process designed to make sure that the defendant is truly guilty.
They need to follow the processes of the court system and stop with the extortion letters (which are not settlements because you are not settling with the individual record companies) and stop with the selective enforcement. They also need to have all parties involved in the court cases rather than surprise people with a lawsuit that could have been avoided. They also need to follow legal precedent and make sure that their legal theories stand the test of time (secondary liability comes to mind). Finally, if the defendant decides to fight the charges, the RIAA/record companies should see the process the whole way through, or declare that the defendant is not guilty if discovery shows that to be true (rather than try to dismiss the case as if it never happened).
Simply put, one side committing a crime does not allow the other side free reign on that person.
1) Don't refute testimony, case goes to court, defendant wins but has to pay own lawyer fees because it is assumed that UMG filed the case in good faith
2) Refute testimony, force UMG for dismiss with prejudice, defendant gets lawyer fees paid for by UMG because case was not filed in good faith (witnesses did not have enough evidence to file case).
Seems like if I were defendant (or even defendant's lawyer), I would prefer 2. UMG has more money to pay lawyer than defendant.
If the company does not have enough internal control of its equipment, supplies, financial accounts, assets, etc. to prevent theft, then whose fault is it. I am fine with them going after the worker for the violation not only of work place rules but of law but if for every 1 worker they catch, 10 are getting away with the act then the problem may not be with the worker.
An employee is under more control of a company than in independent contractor or someone working for free. I am sure the beta tester did sign a contract (of course, the legality of electronic signatures are still in question) but once they release something to the wild, they are at the mercy of who gets the item. They may have legal recourse but it is alot harder to enforce then on an employee.
Finally, if you are getting free people, you have to question why they would do something for free. I am sure there are a group of people who do like MS products and are willing to test the new ones because they are getting something back. The same of course goes for people who give up work for OSS projects. However, you will have some people who have a different reward in mind.
I do understand that there are people that break the rules but a company should have processes in place to deal with that (at least any company that actually wants to make money)and when it comes to getting people to follow the rules, employees are better than indies.
OK, get me if I am wrong here but the testers were working for free, correct. If MS (or any other company for that matter, even Apple), does not want to pay for work, then they take their chances. If they want testers that will follow their rules, they should pay the testers then. Very simple concept.
I have to wonder what would happen if someone took this to small claims court claiming Warranty of Merchantiblity(sp?). This is where the product is suppose to do as it is intended to do (for example, if your toaster does not make toast and the manufacturer told you to use it as a door stop, you are still entitled to you money back because the toaster did not work as a toast should work).
I know every state has laws such as this and it would be interesting to see the EULA get around them as these laws normally trump what the manufacturer states. Since small claims court is simple (and for the amount of any copy of Windows, you are well within the courts scope), maybe a test case will prove once and for all if MS can or cannot do stuff like this.
It is common law actually. There are many cases quotes (see this site: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary ). The truth to that statement is that paying taxes in the US is NOT voluntary. The government has the right to use force to collect your taxes (including assess the taxes without your input and demand payment).
Congress and the courts however felt that the use of force would be unwise in most cases and as such, allowed the citizen the choice of being able to voluntarily comply with the tax laws. Voluntary compliance means that you present your data to the IRS, you determine what tax you pay, and you pay it without force. If you refuse to comply, then the IRS can resort to force.
What he is trying to do is to start another Ruby Ridge so that Congress gets involved, people like the Brown's tell sob storied (Even though they are even robbing their own employees by taking their withheld taxes and not paying the government) and congress puts another leash on the IRS. I do believe that the IRS needs to hold restraint in some cases but not in this case. Those idiots owe more in taxes than I have made in almost 15 years of working. It is time that they pay up.
I would think a fair percentage from both. I have heard that in a recent morale survey, for the first time in IBM history, a majority of the people said they would leave IBM if they got a better deal elsewhere
I for one am not surprised by this action. I have heard for a while that morale at IBM is at an all time low and this is the result. I wonder how much other good talent has left IBM that we do not know about.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the Federal Government did not do anything to get arbitration removed by Credit Card issuing banks.
What happened was that the banks used an organization called NAF which was literally funded by the banks. Of course NAF found for the banks 99% of the time. Then the MN Attorney General looking to make a name for herself took NAF to task and NAF folded. That left 2 arbitration forums that were more expensive for the banks and more consumer friendly than NAF.
Some consumers actually read their contract and when they were brought to court for not paying their debts, used the contract against the banks to force the banks into paying 5-figure arbitration fees for 4-figure debts. The court judges in some states started to go along with the consumers. Hence, the banks removed arbitration from their contracts because they could not outright use it to screw over the customer anymore. Of course, the banks have a 98% success rate in court but that is because people do not answer the cases when summoned and even if they do answer, most answer "I cannot afford to pay".
Do a search on credit debt collection boards and you will find what I mean about the above.
So, since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did. Are they trying to turn this into something like the Providian case where they OCC entered at the last minute then turned around and said that state AGs cannot take banks to court for violations using that case as a success (again, look up Providian Credit Card Case)? I wonder if they are trying to protect the cell phone companies rather than the consumers.
Personally I am rooting on Hurd because that will help many of the little people too with these same clauses. I think that if they do not want him working for a set period of time, then then need to pay him for that time based on current salary (same as any other worker whom they do not want to work for the competition). That would make things fair for both sides.
That would be the Thomas case where you pay $9,000/song plus RIAA legal fees plus your own.
This is my question to NYCL. Can a judge modify the order to require the plaintiff to pay for the defendants costs? If not, then the defendant is out the legal costs and this is really no victory what so ever because the RIAA can still use this case as leverage for their extortion scheme (pay us $5000 now or you will pay $20,000 whether you win or lose).
If I were a defendant in this situation, I would fight the motion for dismissal on those grounds.
I notice that it is always the large companies that try to do stuff like this, not the smaller companies and businesses. If this concerns you, reevaluate who you work for. May be tough in these economic times but there are still job opportunities for if you look hard enough (and really, smaller businesses to not hire from Monster.com/Dice/Local Newspaper).
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice. If they can, that will allow them to get out of paying the other party's legal fees but allow them to refile the case in the future. If they cannot, they can be held responsible for the legal fees and cannot refile.
So what I want to know it, what is the point where the judges say "Put up or shut up"? I know in the Oklahoma case (don't have the particulars on hand), the RIAA was forced to accept a dismissal with prejudice because significant discovery had already been done. I wonder in this case, had discovery even commenced or did the RIAA try to get a default judgment based on what they had and once they could not get that, dismiss to avoid discovery and the related issues.
I had also read somewhere in one of the RIAA cases that the judge's decision was based on the fact that the defendant has the right to their day in court too if there is a legal issue to prove their innocence. Will that factor here too?
That is exactly what is going on, although I have to add that most of the politicians are from Downstate NY and most people there thing Upstate means Albany (forget about Syracuse, Watertown, Binghamton, Rochester, and Buffalo).
This biggest way this issue shows up is the issue involving taxing tobacco and gas on Native reservations. Looks like Paterson is going to try again not realizing the mistakes of Cuomo and Pataki. The last time they tried to tax sales on reservations, it lead to quite a bit of blood shed on both sides and embarrassment for the governor. Part of that issue too is that all major transportation arteries in Upstate NY run through an Native reservation of some sort or another.
Glad I left NY years ago. Have no plans to move back.
If it is not about the money than what is it about? All this effort to refute science will not bring about better therapies or even a cure. I do not think more research is being done if scientists are busy trying to defend their work in court or discovery.
Simply put, if scientific treatments were available to children with autism that have been proven to work without cost to the families, if care was available so the rest of the family can do normal things, if care was available for the adults who cannot be self-supporting, would this even be an issue. I think not. But because so much stress is put on the family in both finances and personal issues, people are grasping at any straw they can get at before they go under, even if the straw turns out to be a 500 lb weight.
Yes, right now there are huge issues with snake oil dealers offering their wares to desperate parents. Some of which are downright dangerous. Yes, there are too few trained therapists and the ones that are out there are out of reach in cost except to those in the upper classes. This makes the situation a lot worse than it really ought to be.
I am sorry to say, but in the end, the issue is money. Who is going to pay for this when no one wants to? But should be throw aside science just because it is inconvenient. If that is the case, then all of the planets, moons, and sun should still revolve around the earth which is flat. We really need to take the science at face value and move on because I do not think it does your children, as well as anyone else with an ASD any good to continue to dwell on this subject.
The reason why this debate has been and is still going on, even with the evidence to the contrary, is the money trail.
The average cost of therapies for Autism is about $50,000 - $100,000 US per year for at least 2 - 3 years for those who end up being higher functioning and even more for those that are lower functioning. Health Insurance companies refuse to pay the costs calling it a mental health issue (will be interesting to see where mental health parity leads), the schools do not want to pay for it because they do not see it as a medical issue, and for those who never get the ability to survive on their own, the government is not real interested in paying for their care for the rest of their lives. I am sure that in some ways, athasma is in a similar area.
To make the situation worse, there is stress on the whole family. The parents cannot go out together because they cannot find someone to care for their kid. The other kids feel left out. There is the monetary stress. Simply put they want someone to pay.
Who better than a big bad corporation who has deep pockets. So of course, now they are going to be blamed. The lawyers pick it up for the money and the media picks it up because situations like that sell news. Even worse, if there is evidence that proves that this group is wrong, it is either ignored or there is a conspiracy. I remember a couple of months ago where we here on Slashdot where a mother and person with Autism did a blog against the whole MMR causes vaccines argument and was vigorously subpeonaed by a lawyer fighting for anti-vaccine parents. This occurred in the Dow-Corning fight with Silicone Breast implants too.
Add to the fact that in most cases, scientists cannot and will not say for 100% certainty that MMR does not cause Autism. This is because nothing is 100%. If 100 people jump out of a 3rd story window and all die, are you 100% certain that the 101st also will die when the jump out. In fact, the agent which is claimed to cause the issues has been removed from vaccines in many states in the USA and the expected drop in autism has not occurred. That should be enough proof for most people that they are looking up the wrong path.
I do not think this will die however until someone/thing comes up with a system to pay for the treatments of autism and other issues. This is all about the money.
Even the questions do not change, only the question numbers. I remember taking Calculus III where one student refused to purchase the new edition and we let him map the question numbers between editions so that he did not have to.
The idea here is to completely remove the used textbook market which costs the publishers quite a bit of money. I would almost bet that Hamlet and the other required reading in English Lit has not changed much in a couple of hundred years but every other year, there is a new edition.
What it comes down to is terms of employment. If you have a contract, than the issue of patents is probably spelled out in such a contract. If you are an at-will employee, that means that your company can fire you if the powers that be do not like the color of you pants let alone refusing to take part in a process that could or could not enrich them.
What will happen if you refuse is that not only will you be fired, but if you signed a non-compete agreement, you can be sure that the company will pursue that avenue as much as it legally can to make sure you do not work to break you. They will also pursue all other legal avenues just to make your life difficult. As for the patent, I am sure you worked in a group and as such, will simply get someone else to put their name on it using you as an example on what happens if they refuse.
The truth of the matter though is, if you did the work on company time and it was a company project, then it is their idea and work, not yours. You therefore have to follow the company directives on that work.
What I would suggest is doing the objections thing first. If that does not work, they vigorously try to find any prior art that would cause issues with the patent office. I am sure you could find something through IBM's portfolio if you look hard enough.
The other step would be to consider a job change. The big companies may seem to be leaving the USA but many small/mid-sized companies that are private are screaming for programmers. They are more likely to understand a person who lives by principles. In other words, start looking for another job or method to earn income. If you leave this employer on good terms, then at least you may have a chance of negotiating your terms of discharge with them.
Actually, it is dependent on state law as to what what patents are owned by the company and which ones are not. I know here in Minnesota, the only patents that the company is allowed to request from an individual are any that were the result of company work. If you create something on your own time, it is your own patent and a company contract cannot take that right away
The rules of trespass are dependent on the state you reside in. The issue here is how the rules apply to rural property which is different in some ways than urban property due to the cost of putting up a fence on a property that could be at least 40 acres.
Most states require a sign that states either "PRIVATE PROPERTY" or "NO TRESPASSING" that is of a certain height and width and includes the name and address of a contact person. In some states, this sign is to only be posted at the entrance of the property (such as New Hampshire) and in other states, it is to be posted at intervals around the property (such as NY that requires a sign every 40 ft).
Once the property is posted, it becomes the responsibility of the party without permission to enter the property to keep off. Once there is evidence that they were on the property and the property owner can prove it, you can be charged with trespass.
Also, you cannot claim that you cannot read or do not understand English. The signs are usually a special color (usually yellow with black lettering). This has been an issue with the Hmong community in this part of the country.
This will get more interesting however because as Google tries to photograph more rural regions of the country where the map may mark a road but the road itself is private property. Hell, even some suburban areas have streets that are private property (here, condo developments and apartment complexes have private streets which are signed a different color than public streets).
True, there is no expectation of privacy from a public street but once you hit a "No Trespassing" sign, there is an expectation of privacy beyond that sign.
BTW, the air rights for a property is generally 200ft. You can put an antenna on your property up to 200ft without notification to the FAA. It is obviously lower near airports.
There will be no court case on Monday. The Bankruptcy filing effectively stays the lawsuit until SCO is reorganized or the Bankruptcy judge removes the stay.
I am thinking the later will happen. I am sure the Novell will file that SCO is really a fiduciary for their assets under the contract and as such, they get first dibs on SCO's assets. In order to find out how much Novell gets though, the case will have to be heard and ruled on. Therefore, the Bankruptcy court judge will lift the stay on the trial.
Even if Mrs. Foster does die, the heirs to her estate can continue the suit (and it would be to their advantage since the lawyers can attach the estate). Therefore, someone dying does not end a lawsuit.
In fact, the same works for bankruptcy (as we will see in the SCO case). When an entity declares bankruptcy, the trustee takes over all of the affairs that have a financial impact to the estate, including legal cases. The trustee can then decide whether it is in the best interest in the creditors to continue the fight or give up.
Capitol Records will eventually end up paying. The only issue is when and how much by the time it is all settled.
Gosh, $300 does not look like a win to me.
In most places, that is similar to the cost of a average speeding ticket by the time court fees and the like are taken into account. That low of an amount certainly does not stop speeding.
Also, by the time you consider that the settlement offers are requesting thousands of dollars, one could simply ignore them, wait for the lawsuit, contact a lawyer to make the settlement offer, and be done with it for less money. Why would I answer a settlement letter after this (assuming I get one first considering the way things are going regarding ex parte subpoenas for the RIAA).
I will agree with you that file sharing is illegal and that file sharing amounts to theft and that it occurs on college networks.
HOWEVER
You do not fight crime by committing a crime yourself. You do not shoot a jaywalker that walked in front of your car forcing you to slow down (hell, you should not even run them over). However, the RIAA feels that since the defendants in their opinion were committing a crime, they do not have to follow the process designed to make sure that the defendant is truly guilty.
They need to follow the processes of the court system and stop with the extortion letters (which are not settlements because you are not settling with the individual record companies) and stop with the selective enforcement. They also need to have all parties involved in the court cases rather than surprise people with a lawsuit that could have been avoided. They also need to follow legal precedent and make sure that their legal theories stand the test of time (secondary liability comes to mind). Finally, if the defendant decides to fight the charges, the RIAA/record companies should see the process the whole way through, or declare that the defendant is not guilty if discovery shows that to be true (rather than try to dismiss the case as if it never happened).
Simply put, one side committing a crime does not allow the other side free reign on that person.
Real simple,
1) Don't refute testimony, case goes to court, defendant wins but has to pay own lawyer fees because it is assumed that UMG filed the case in good faith
2) Refute testimony, force UMG for dismiss with prejudice, defendant gets lawyer fees paid for by UMG because case was not filed in good faith (witnesses did not have enough evidence to file case).
Seems like if I were defendant (or even defendant's lawyer), I would prefer 2. UMG has more money to pay lawyer than defendant.
I do understand that there are people that break the rules but a company should have processes in place to deal with that (at least any company that actually wants to make money)and when it comes to getting people to follow the rules, employees are better than indies.
OK, get me if I am wrong here but the testers were working for free, correct. If MS (or any other company for that matter, even Apple), does not want to pay for work, then they take their chances. If they want testers that will follow their rules, they should pay the testers then. Very simple concept.
I have to wonder what would happen if someone took this to small claims court claiming Warranty of Merchantiblity(sp?). This is where the product is suppose to do as it is intended to do (for example, if your toaster does not make toast and the manufacturer told you to use it as a door stop, you are still entitled to you money back because the toaster did not work as a toast should work).
I know every state has laws such as this and it would be interesting to see the EULA get around them as these laws normally trump what the manufacturer states. Since small claims court is simple (and for the amount of any copy of Windows, you are well within the courts scope), maybe a test case will prove once and for all if MS can or cannot do stuff like this.
It is common law actually. There are many cases quotes (see this site: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary ). The truth to that statement is that paying taxes in the US is NOT voluntary. The government has the right to use force to collect your taxes (including assess the taxes without your input and demand payment).
Congress and the courts however felt that the use of force would be unwise in most cases and as such, allowed the citizen the choice of being able to voluntarily comply with the tax laws. Voluntary compliance means that you present your data to the IRS, you determine what tax you pay, and you pay it without force. If you refuse to comply, then the IRS can resort to force.
Please tell me you are not serious. The courts have ruled time and time again that wages are income and on other such nonsense.
In fact, this website http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html will show you the fallacy in the arguments of those like Ed Brown.
What he is trying to do is to start another Ruby Ridge so that Congress gets involved, people like the Brown's tell sob storied (Even though they are even robbing their own employees by taking their withheld taxes and not paying the government) and congress puts another leash on the IRS. I do believe that the IRS needs to hold restraint in some cases but not in this case. Those idiots owe more in taxes than I have made in almost 15 years of working. It is time that they pay up.
I would think a fair percentage from both. I have heard that in a recent morale survey, for the first time in IBM history, a majority of the people said they would leave IBM if they got a better deal elsewhere
I for one am not surprised by this action. I have heard for a while that morale at IBM is at an all time low and this is the result. I wonder how much other good talent has left IBM that we do not know about.